This is the mail archive of the cygwin-developers mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: 1.7.1 release date?


On 12/04/2009 01:10 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 06:26:46PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Dec 4 12:13, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 05:28:08PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
We discussed this already multiple times.  The idea was not to rename
the new release directory.  It will be still called release-2 and only
the unionfs is supposed to go away.  Otherwise you would have to rebuild
the old setup version as well.  It's a lot of hassle for no gain.

Well, apparently we didn't discuss it in this thread. I think it is a very bad idea to have a "release" directory which contains old stuff and I think it is moderately bad idea to have a "release-2" directory permanently associated with Cygwin 1.7.

If it is just rebuilding setup.exe that is the problem then I can do
that.  I have the changes nearly ready to go, in fact.

By renaming the directories you enforce an unnecessary update of 10 Gigs per mirror. Unnecessary, especially concidering the fact that this isn't user-visible anyway. After all it's just a name of a directory, nothing else. As long as we know what is what, it doesn't matter at all.

I just searched for the initial discussion about this topic where you made the "it's too much bandwidth" argument. It's puzzling because, after some discussion, you said:

On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 02:15:59PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Ok, let's decide about renaming directories at some later point.

Then Chuck Wilson said:


On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 11:04:30AM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
That is, no directory renaming at all (which would make the mirrors
happy) -- we "activate" by releasing a new setup?

To which you replied:


On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 06:02:15PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Yes! :)

So, it seems like somewhere along the line a decision was made without consensus.

Also, at some later point I made this observation:

On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 03:47:05PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
I am not sure how much to worry about the effect on the mirrors.  It
seems like there would be an additional flurry of activity that would
eventually just die down.  I hate to make supportability decisions based
on external constraints.

So, at least we're both being consistent.


Since we added the release-2 directory with no apparent problems to the
mirrors, I don't see why some more shuffling would cause any problems.
The added bandwidth we're talking about is basically just a couple of
full cygwin installs.  And, if the mirror understands hardlinks it is
possible to just temporarily create a release-legacy directory which
just hard links files back to the release directory.  Then the only
data which would be transferred is presumably the inode information.

I really don't like having things named incorrectly and, like I said,
having a directory named "release" which is really an old release and a
directory named "release-2" which is for Cygwin "1.7" is a recipe for
future confusion for me, at the very least, and, I think, for others
as well.

Is it too late to vote? :-) I agree with Chris here. Certainly there will be some additional load on the mirrors if we change names but it's something that affects them in a certain window of time and then evaporates. Having "release" and "release-2" does open up the possibility for confusion of "what's current?" for packagers and those that like to poke around behind the scenes. This should be a minority but why shouldn't we make it clearer and reduce our support load? Unless we know mirrors will be revolting if we temporarily use more bandwidth, I believe we shouldn't let this argument sway us.

--
Larry Hall                              http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
216 Dalton Rd.                          (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746

_____________________________________________________________________

A: Yes.
> Q: Are you sure?
>> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]